A high-hooded truck or SUV is far more dangerous to the public than a small car, and a small car is more dangerous than a motorcycle, so a speeding ticket/liscense points/jail time for an SUV should be >4x more severe than a motorcycle doing the same violation, and bicycles should basically only recieve token fines.
I’d be okay with this.
If you’re going to do it this way, I think you missed the opportunity to do it actually right:
The problem is not just the size and it’s not just speed but really energy. Penalties should scale as mass*speed2 (perhaps with an income multiplier) and for fairness it might be worth subtracting a reference safe energy otherwise your ticket for going 56 in a 55 is still way WAY higher than 30 in a 15.
An SUV that is 20x the weight of a motorcycle is 20x worse at a given speed, but the motorcycle going 200 mph and the 20x weight SUV are just as bad at slow highway speed.
The energy alone isn’t the whole story, the bike or low-hooded car is much more survivable because of the lower point of impact.
Multiply again by h_CM / h_CMRef where the denominator is the height of the center of mass of a typical sedan.
It just gets a little funky if, say, you’re driving a sprayer that is multiple times taller so you couldn’t collide with a reference vehicle anyway. Edge cases happen.
a high hooded truck is more dangerous to the public than a small car.
In what way?
The point of impact is higher. Low points of impact break your legs and let you roll over the hood, while high points of impact break your spine.
Visibility is also limited in those kinds of vehicles.
I can see a small child in front of or behind my hatchback by looking out the windows, and its even easier with the backup camera.
A 5’-0" (152cm) person (who may be fully grown) was basically impossible to see over my old truck’s tailgate.
a high hooded truck is more dangerous to the public than a small car.
In what way?
Visibility, mainly. Mass also, of course, in that it’s an important part of kinetic energy. Also the IQ trends of the (jacked-up dodge ram super-crew-cab long-box Extreme trim-package) driver.
I like this opinion, take my downvote
Some countries they are related to your wealth/income. I think that’s most fair
Por que no los dos?
Elon Musk requires a higher fine to stop him from endangering the public, but if he is driving a semi, theres far greater imperative to get him to stop than if he is riding a motorcycle.
You get ‘punishment’ for the act, not the means/method. Stabbed to death or shot dead is -for the law- the same wrong doing. Same goes for speeding. You broke the speed limit, the tool you used is irrelevant. So when an object -high-hooded truck- is a risk for the public, then make them illegal. Set limits to dimensions.
Don’t get me wrong, i’m not in favor of high-hooded trucks, they ARE a bigger risk, they ARE ridiculous, they ARE waste of natural resources, they ARE 9/10 a compensation of some form and in towns they ARE unpractical sized, but violations any driver makes is just that violation. It has no relation to the vehicle itself.
Stabbed to death or shot dead is -for the law- the same wrong doing
Carrying a firearm while committing a felony often carries a 5-10 year minimum, and using it can be 20-life, seperate from the crime of murder.
The reason for this is that carrying guns while committing a felony is significantly more dangerous. Same with going 35 in a school zone in an SUV vs a bicycle.
SUV vs a bicycle
I think you are either just angry or jealous at SUV’s. In every reaction -to me and anyone else- you only keep using extremes to defend your point.
But how is t.ex. a builder gonna bring stuff to build whatever he needs to build? Hook up a trailer to his tricycle ?
Don’t speed while you’re driving large vehicles, because it’s more dangerous.
But also contractors put trailers on the back of their motorbikes here. If they need to haul more, there’s kei trucks, and then industrial trucks. F-150s aren’t so common with contractors as they’re expensive to buy and maintain for what they can actually do.
Don’t speed while you’re driving
largevehicles,because it’s more dangerous.FTFY
From the multi post and responses I get the feeling your fit is (mostly) with the F-150. Other than that, It seems we took our stands and I don’t think this discussion is going anywhere.
Traffic violations should be scaled by the size of your income
*net worth
There is no fine you can levy on a billionaire that will affect him. All speeding offences should result in being locked up for a period of time, starting with a few hours and escalating with further offences. Bonus points if they are given lessons on road safety during their incarceration.
Suvs shouldn’t be allowed, plain and simple
Doesn’t fit my sense of justice as to why the mom of a large family driving a minivan is somehow more morally responsible for the harm they caused by ending up in an accident than a reckless motorcycle driver is. I think the fine should reflect the circumstances that led to the accident rather than what you ended up in the accident with. Texting and driving isn’t less bad just because you’re driving a Miata.
more morally responsible for the harm they caused
The argument is that the degree of harm is much greater in the suburban childkiller.
Texting and driving isn’t less bad just because you’re driving a Miata.
Would you rather be hit by a lifted F-250 texting and driving or a Vespa texting and driving?
Vespa but that’s irrelevant. The point of the punishment is to not have people text and drive - not to punish them for having a larger vehicle. The Vespa driver is not less morally culpable for ending up in the accident in the first place - just luckier that the consequences were less severe.
Would you make the same argument for gun violence? If a person commits armed robbery then should someone who used a .22 get a lesser sentence than someone who used a .45 ACP and if not, why? Larger caliber is more dangerous exactly the same way a larger vehicle is.
Vespa but that’s irrelevant. The point of the punishment is to not have people text and drive - not to punish them for having a larger vehicle.
Many laws exist to reduce risk and harm. The difference in risk and harm of a speeding car vs. a speeding scooter should not require elaboration, as shown also by you choosing the Vespa.
The Vespa driver is not less morally culpable for ending up in the accident in the first place - just luckier that the consequences were less severe.
If we accept that the risk and harm involved in a Vespa crash are less severe than a car crash, there is absolutely a difference in moral culpability. If you knowingly perform an action where the potential outcome is the death of some random person, you should be held responsible to a higher degree than if you knowingly perform an action where the potential outcome is a handful of bruises on a random person (I’m talking about general rules, not saying Vespa crashes don’t involve more serious risks).
Same reason why breaking traffic laws on a bicycle generally carries less severe punishment than doing the same on a motorcycle or in a car.
Would you make the same argument for gun violence? If a person commits armed robbery then should someone who used a .22 get a lesser sentence than someone who used a .45 ACP and if not, why? Larger caliber is more dangerous exactly the same way a larger vehicle is.
No, because the person carrying the firearm made a decision to put other people’s lives on the line. A .22 can kill a person, and the person carrying it knows this, yet chooses to use it to threaten someone.
breaking traffic laws on a bicycle generally carries less severe punishment than doing the same on a motorcycle or in a car.
Sadly the law often doesn’t distinguish; dui on a bicycle in most states in America can carry the same penalties. In Japan, it can be 3 years in prison. The judge and cops often realize how absurd this is and apply leniency, but even that gets limited by minimum sentences designed to stop repeat DUI offenders from endangering the public in a car.
I have sympathy for an addict who makes the responsible decision to stop driving a car after getting a DUI, but then gets punished just as if they had kept endangering the public for riding a bicycle.
The reason texting and driving has a less severe punishment than DUI is because it represents a greater risk to the public and thus there is greater incentive to stop it.
Would you make the same argument for gun violence?
If there was meaningful data that one was more deadly, but I seriously doubt a 22 is meaningfully less lethal when you’re within arms reach of the victim.
I didn’t say anything about DUI. I don’t feel like you’re engaging in good faith here but rather just avoiding addressing the obvious holes in your reasoning. This all reads more like anti-SUV post than a genuine attempt at finding the truth.
I also wish traffic violations would actually be enforced and then maybe more people would remember that they’re operating a massive chunk of deadly metal.
You’re saying it should be tied to recklessness, which the law already does.
If a bicyclist runs a stop sign, they are liable for the consequences same as if they were in a car.
deleted by creator
I would have thought that this opinion would only be unpopular with those who have a small dick and an emotional support vehicle. It makes perfect sense in terms of potential harm the driver can do.
It appears you’ve angered the users with small dicks and emotional support vehicles.
